P L D 1980 Lahore 320 (PLP)
SIDDIQUE SHAH-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1980 Lahore 320 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | S. 411-Stolen property, possession of-Petitioner raising a counter version from very beginning, claiming cow (subject-matter of charge) to be his own property and for that matter producing evidence in defence-F. 1. R. lodged after recovery of cow allegedly stolen property-Sessions Court failing to discuss evidence on record, ignoring defence evidence altogether and while writing judgment not keeping requirements of S. 367, Cr. P. C. in view-Sessions Court, held, dealt with appeal in perfunctory manner-Petitioner given benefit of doubt and acquitted, in circumstances.-Judgment. |
| Bench Members | : Manzoor Hussain Sial, J |
| Parties | SIDDIQUE SHAH-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1980 Lahore 320 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1980 Lahore 320 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the S. 411-Stolen property, possession of-Petitioner raising a counter version from very beginning, claiming cow (subject-matter of charge) to be his own property and for that matter producing evidence in defence-F. 1. R. lodged after recovery of cow allegedly stolen property-Sessions Court failing to discuss evidence on record, ignoring defence evidence altogether and while writing judgment not keeping requirements of S. 367, Cr. P. C. in view-Sessions Court, held, dealt with appeal in perfunctory manner-Petitioner given benefit of doubt and acquitted, in circumstances.-Judgment. bench comprising: : Manzoor Hussain Sial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1980 Lahore 320 (PLP) (SIDDIQUE SHAH-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Shakoor for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 16th December 1979.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 411-Stolen property, possession of-Petitioner raising a counter version from very beginning, claiming cow (subject-matter of charge) to be his own property and for that matter producing evidence in defence-F. 1. R. lodged after recovery of cow allegedly stolen property-Sessions Court failing to discuss evidence on record, ignoring defence evidence altogether and while writing judgment not keeping requirements of S. 367, Cr. P. C. in view-Sessions Court, held, dealt with appeal in perfunctory manner-Petitioner given benefit of doubt and acquitted, in circumstances.-[Judgment]. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner was tried under section 380/411, P. P. C. by the learned Magistrate, Ferozewala. He was convicted under section 411, P. P. C. and sentenced to six month's R. I. by the Magistrate, vide his order dated 17-5-1967. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura on 23-12-1967.
2. The prosecution version of the occurrence is that on the night between 29-30-1966 a cow belonging to Hashim Ali complainant was stolen from the courtyard of his house in village Miani, Police Station, Narang, District Sheikhupura. The complainant received an information on the following day that same - cow was recovered by C. I. A. Staff in Ferozewala. He went there and identified his cow on 1-11.1966. This cow was stated to have been recovered-by Nakabandi Police party near Kala Khatai Railway Station.
3. The prosecution produced by P. W. 4 Muhammad Zubair, P. W. 5 Muhammad Hussain H. C. to prove the recovery of the cow from the possession of the petitioner:
4. The petitioner was questioned regarding the offence committed by him he pleaded not guilty and claimed the cow to be his own property. V
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the record of this case and contended that the learned Courts below did not adequately considered the version of the defence, and hurriedly passed the order of conviction. He also submitted that no identification of the cow was held. It was also argued that the learned first appellate Court did not keep, in view, the requirements of section 367, Cr. P. C. while announcing the judgment against the petitioner.
6. It is an admitted fact that the . petitioner did raise a -counts version from the very beginning, claiming the cow to be his own property and for that matter, he also produced evidence in defence. The F.
1. R. in this case was also lodged after the recovery of the stolen property. I a not impressed by statements of the P. Ws. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, dealt with the appeal of the petitioner in perfunctory manner. He failed to discuss the evidence on the record. He ignored the defence evidence altogether. It is clear that he did not keep in view the requirement of section 367, Cr. P. C. while writing judgment in appeal.
7. In the circumstances of this case, I consider it proper to extend benefit of doubt in favour of the petitioner. Consequently this petition is accepted and petitioner is acquitted. M. Y. M.????????? Petition allowed.